So you can't wait for Windows new Vista to be released this week?  Saw a
review of the final version on PC Magazine online, today...Here's some
of the results of the testing and review that PC Magazine did on it.
They tested the SAME versions that you'll get in the store, and on all
types of new machines, laptops, low end, high end, minimum memory and
speed, maximum, etc...

I only included some more general cons, but you'll hear about all the
claimed pluses from Windows ads that you will be seeing shortly.  Of
course, they probably won't mention these...

Looks like it needs a lot of work yet to improve on XP...

Harley

PS: Just got this link this morning, as well...looks like Vista's a lot
worse than just what I listed below...as far as I'm concerned, if
windows ever stops supporting XP, may either permanently switch to Linux
or the Mac may be my next machine.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vista won't let you install over an OS that has a C:\Users
multiple-users folder. I didn't realize this until after I'd started the
installation and typed in my Vista product key. When it came time to
choose between a clean install and an overlay, the overlay wasn't an
option. So I moved my Users folder. But now the install wouldn't take:
Vista thought I'd already completed installation. It took me days to
straighten things out

Vista's real competitor, though, is Windows XP. For many users, XP is
still good enough. And for all the advances in Vista, it's hard to avoid
seeing the things that aren't as good as they could have been.

Nor is Vista bug-free. As I assessed final code, I ran into a variety of
small but annoying glitches and found plenty of features that didn't
work as seamlessly as I would have liked. I can't shake the feeling that
Vista's release was rushed.

Hefty hardware requirements. Minor bugs and rough edges in UI. Lack of a
killer app to compel adoption. Many features also available for Windows
XP users.

Vista offers improvements over Win­dows XP, but most of them are
conveniences rather than essentials.

Incompatibility issues with latest graphics card drivers from ATI

Some games were more sluggish than in Windows XP Pro.

Had to uninstall Norton Internet Security

Had to remove McAfee security applications

You can't back up your entire system if running a FAT32 file system.

Drive Encryption did not recognize the Trusted Platform Module; you'll
need an NTFS file system, TPM, and a BIOS update to run BitLocker.

Vista did not recognize the integrated Sierra Wireless EV-DO card.

Screen orientation, arrow, and escape buttons on the tablet screen do
not work.

Had to convert the file system of the C: partition to NTFS before
proceeding.

Installing Vista is a lot slower on a budget PC, taking over 3 hours

You might do better with Vista Home Basic. But if that's what you
choose, you'll need to install it fresh and reinstall all your
applications, because you can't upgrade to Home Basic, only to Premium
or Ultimate.

Office 2003 works just as well and as fast as it does in XP, so you
don't have to upgrade to Office 2007.

Integrated graphics and 512MB of system memory just aren't enough

Slow when installing programs, playing games, and encoding video. Media
Center works, but loading video is slow.

Bugs appeared in older games

Vista did not support ATI's CrossFire

Installer did not autodetect all components,

32-bit programs are installed in a Program Files (x86) folder, which can
cause problems for older installers that don't like ­parentheses in
their folder names.

Video became garbled after 15 minutes of viewing live and recorded TV.

--------------------------------------------------------------
It may be never before it is debugged.
Requires draconian activation so you can't change any of your
hardware with out first getting Bill Gates permission.

Bug and virus free Linux marches on getting better and better.
I am now and have been running it since 1998.
In the mean time Red Hat Linux Fedora six already has some of the
same features as Vista. I just bought it in the book store for ten
dollars and that included a magazine :)

Paul Lamar

Yes, they rushed it. Uncle Bill needed a new fix of cash and wall street
wasn't happy they kept pushing back the release date. Because they
wanted the backwards compatibly AGAIN, they also did not re-write every
line of code. They claim they did publicly, just as when XP came out,
but then we learned XP is really NT 5.1 with NT 5.0 being Windows 2000.
Oh Well, they didn't learn from Apple - they should have drawn a line in
the sand and started over completely.

Another thing I see as a problem, your user interface will be different
for different machines. The upgrade you did to a low end machine will
have a different appearance and features from the one you install on a
high end, and still different from the OEM installed next to you. So
don't expect to have a conversation go smoothly where you say "Click on
the start button, select control panel, then the third item down" or
some such thing..

Yeah, I'm with Paul - Linux for the intel based PC, and Mac using Linux
based OS X.

-dave